'Juvenile Lifers' lose parole challenge in appeals court
A federal appeals court Tuesday rejected a constitutional challenge to the state's parole system by inmates who were sent to prison decades ago for crimes they committed as juveniles.
A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower-court ruling in a class-action lawsuit that alleged violations of the U.S. Constitution's Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment and due-process rights.
Florida eliminated parole in the 1980s and 1990s, but the case focuses on inmates who were sent to prison before the elimination. The ruling said about 170 current inmates were sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole for crimes committed as juveniles — what it described as 'juvenile lifers.'
It said the Florida Commission on Offender Review, which reviews parole cases and, among other things, sets what are known as 'presumptive parole release dates,' has released roughly two juvenile lifers a year since 2012.
'The practical upshot is that the overwhelming majority of juvenile lifers have presumptive parole release dates so far in the future that they may well die in prison,' the ruling, written by Judge Kevin Newsom and joined by Judges Jill Pryor and Barbara Lagoa said.
The case, at least in part, involved a series of decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court since 2010 about sentencing of juveniles.
As an example, a 2010 Supreme Court decision, in a case known as Graham v. Florida, said states must provide juveniles convicted of non-murder crimes 'some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation,' according to Tuesday's ruling. As another example, a 2012 Supreme Court decision, in a case known as Miller v. Alabama, said the Eighth Amendment forbids mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles convicted of murder.
The ruling said the plaintiffs in the class action argued that the 'meaningful opportunity' standard in the Graham decision should also apply to juveniles convicted of murder.
But it said the Supreme Court had not approved such an extension of the standard and rejected the notion that that parole system is a 'sham.' Also, the ruling said the parole system offered a 'meaningful opportunity' for juveniles convicted in non-murder cases.
'Since 2012, the commission has granted parole to at least 24 juvenile lifers who would otherwise be part of the certified class — on average, about two every year,' Newsom wrote. 'Given that about 170 juvenile lifers remain incarcerated, the math works out to about 1% of the juvenile-lifer population obtaining release yearly. Florida's system may not be a particularly generous one, but it's hardly a sham. The upshot: When the juvenile lifers were convicted, decades ago, their sentencers genuinely had the discretion to choose a sentence of less than life in prison (as required by the Supreme Court's Miller decision). So, with respect to the homicide offenders, the Eighth Amendment claim fails.'
Click here to download our free news, weather and smart TV apps. And click here to stream Channel 9 Eyewitness News live.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
'All-in': GOP lawmakers divided on US involvement as Trump pushes Iran for diplomatic end
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called for the president to go "all-in" for Israel should a diplomatic end to the conflict with Iran not be met. Earlier in the day, President Donald Trump called on Iranian leaders to return to the negotiating table to strike a nuclear deal to avoid "even more brutal" attacks. Graham lauded Trump's desire to bring Iran back to the table but countered that "if Iran refuses this offer, I strongly believe it is in America's national security interest to go all-in to help Israel finish the job." "One of the benefits of this approach is that it would substantially undo the damage done to our reputation by Biden's disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan," Graham said on X. "If diplomacy fails, going all-in for Israel shows that America is back as a reliable ally and a strong force against oppression. It would strengthen our hand in all corners of the world, as well as all other conflicts we face." Fetterman Calls For Us To Supply Anything Israel Needs For Iran Attack: 'Military, Intelligence, Weaponry' Read On The Fox News App His zeal to support the Jewish State came before Fox News reported that two U.S. Navy Destroyers, the USS Sullivans and USS Arleigh Burke, were assisting Israel to shoot down incoming missile volleys from Iran. However, other pro-Israel lawmakers were not ready to see American troops deployed in the region and believed Trump would be the key to preventing any action from the U.S. Israel Launches 'Operation Rising Lion' On Iran, Targeting Nuclear Facilities, Tehran "I can't imagine a world in which that happens," Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., told Fox News Digital. "I'd be opposed to that. The president is adamantly opposed to that. I trust President Trump here to keep our troops and other personnel safe in the region." Hawley said Trump "has offered Iran an off-ramp here for a long time" through the nuclear agreement negotiation and noted the president again offered an out. Mccaul Says Israel Strikes Are 'Perfect Opportunity' For Iranians To Overthrow Islamic Regime "You know, they ought to take that off-ramp," he said. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Jim Risch, R-Idaho, told Fox News Digital in a statement that "no one hates to see U.S. troops put at risk more than our president." "President Trump has worked tirelessly to end wars and stop killing. And, in this case, I know he will continue to do all he can to keep U.S. troops out of harm's way as the war between Israel and Iran unfolds," he said. Israel's strike on Iran was intended to take out the country's nuclear enrichment program and carry out targeted attacks on a number of top Iranian officials. Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., said the strike was "warranted" given Iran's years of aggression against Israel, but he agreed with the president that negotiations needed to resume. "A regime that chants 'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel' can never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon," he said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "Israel has every right to defend itself, and America stands with Israel." But others, like Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., accused Trump of killing the Iran nuclear agreement and contended that the end of negotiations "accelerated Iran's development towards a bomb." Still, he hoped a deal could be made to prevent further "escalation in the region that could endanger American citizens, troops and our interests." "As we support Israel in protecting their people from Iran's response, everyone needs to be focused on de-escalation," Kelly said in a statement. Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for article source: 'All-in': GOP lawmakers divided on US involvement as Trump pushes Iran for diplomatic end
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Broward judge denies violating judicial conduct code over deepfake AI call
Broward County Judge Lauren Peffer in a new court filing Friday formally denied the ethics charges filed against her, stemming from her promotion of a scandalous book and a deepfake AI recording during her campaign last year. In the routine filing with Florida's Supreme Court, Peffer denied the Judicial Qualifications Commission's charges filed last month that she violated judicial ethics rules that govern 'inappropriate political activity.' Peffer, a first-time judicial candidate, won her seat in August and began her term in January. During her campaign, which centered on trustworthiness and ethics in the judiciary, Peffer referenced in an endorsement interview with the South Florida Sun Sentinel editorial board a book written and published by a former courthouse employee in the Orlando area called, 'The Ninth Circus Court of Florida, My 30-Year Job from Hell!' The book, written by someone who had been terminated, 'portrays the judiciary in the Ninth Judicial Circuit as corrupt and incompetent and attacks the character' of numerous judges, including current Chief Judge Lisa Munyon, according to the JQC's charging document. Peffer wrote in response to a Sun Sentinel editorial board questionnaire that the book's 'recent revelations' had 'highlighted an image crisis within Florida's judiciary,' according to the JQC's notice of formal charges. At the time Peffer cited the book in the Sun Sentinel interview, it lacked any published reviews and appeared to have generated no public discourse or impact, the Sun Sentinel previously reported. Asked by the Sun Sentinel about evidence of the book creating public mistrust, Peffer sent the newspaper a link to an 18-minute recording of what purported to be a phone call about the book between Munyon, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz and Justice Renatha Francis, according to the notice of charges. But the recording was fake, likely made with generative AI, and could be deemed so by 'any reasonable person,' the JQC said in its notice of charges. Broward judicial candidate drops Orlando author's self-published tell-all from her campaign stump speech Peffer was forwarded the link to the recording 'by another lawyer,' her response filed Friday said. Peffer in her response to the charges on Friday acknowledged that she had not 'carefully listened to the call but had a recollection that the judiciary was being criticized in the recording' and did not try to determine its veracity before providing it to the newspaper. 'Judge Peffer acknowledges that she should have more carefully listened to the recording before referencing it in her answers to the editorial board. In responding to these proceedings, Judge Peffer listened to the recordings without distraction, and it was immediately apparent that the purported phone call was a 'deep fake,'' her response said. However, she denied that she shared the recording 'despite clear evidence of its inauthenticity,' as the JQC alleged in its charges. In her response, Peffer also admitted that she never read the disgruntled employee's book before referencing it to the Sun Sentinel and did not research the claims the employee made. 'Judge Peffer did not intend to promote the validity of the book but instead, she intended to point to the book as an example of criticism of the judiciary,' her response said. She previously acknowledged issues with the book in a July interview with the Sun Sentinel and said she would stop citing it. Peffer denied that she 'ignored' the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee's training on campaign ethics as the notice of charges alleged and denied that she 'helped facilitate the former employee's farce,' according to her response.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Biden-appointed judge thwarts Trump's attempt to clean house at consumer safety agency
A federal judge in Maryland on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump lacked the authority to fire three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and ordered their reinstatement — teeing up another high-stakes court clash centered on Trump's ability as commander-in-chief to remove or otherwise control the members of independent agencies. U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox, a Biden appointee, sided with the three ousted members of the board — Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric and Richard Trumka Jr. — in ruling that their firings were unlawful and ordered all three members to be reinstated to their posts. In his ruling, Maddox said that the tenured design and protection of the five-member, staggered-term CPSC board does "not interfere with" Trump's executive branch powers under Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Appeals Court Blocks Trump From Firing Federal Board Members, Tees Up Supreme Court Fight The decision is a near-term blow for Trump, and comes just weeks after the Supreme Court last month agreed to uphold, for now, Trump's removal of two Democratic appointees from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protections Board (MSPB). Both board members had challenged their terminations as "unlawful" in separate lawsuits filed in D.C. federal court. The Supreme Court voted 6-3 in May to temporarily allow the firing of both board members, siding with lawyers for the Trump administration, who had urged the justices to keep both members on the job while the case continued to move through the lower courts. Read On The Fox News App In his ruling, Maddox sought to distinguish those cases from the terminations of members of the CPSC board and said that the Trump administration, in this case, had failed to identify neglect or malfeasance by any other Senate-confirmed commissioners on the CPSC, which is required by law to justify their removals. Judges V Trump: Here Are The Key Court Battles Halting The White House Agenda "For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds no constitutional defect in the statutory restriction on Plaintiffs' removal and that Plaintiffs' purported removal from office was unlawful," he said in the order. "The Court shall enter an Order granting Plaintiffs' motion, denying Defendants' motion, and providing declaratory and injunctive relief permitting Plaintiffs to resume their duties as CPSC Commissioners." The decision clears the way for the members to return to their roles on the board, pending an appeal to higher courts by the Trump administration. The case is the latest in a string of challenges centered on Trump's ability to remove members of independent boards. Like the NLRB and MSPB rulings, it centers on the 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey's Executor, in which the court unanimously ruled that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause. Maddox invoked the uncertainty created by the preliminary posture of the NLRB and MSPB cases, which saw both plaintiffs removed and reinstated to their positions multiple times — which he said was the basis for ordering more permanent injunctive relief. "Disruption might have resulted in the instant case if Plaintiffs had been reinstated while this case was in its preliminary posture, only to have the Court later deny relief in its final judgment and subject Plaintiffs to removal again," said Maddox. "The risk of such disruption is no longer a factor now that the Court is granting permanent injunctive relief as a final judgment."Original article source: Biden-appointed judge thwarts Trump's attempt to clean house at consumer safety agency
